You make a good argument, but I think you misunderstand where I'm coming from.

Killing people who kill is an irrational way to uphold the societal value that killing is wrong. As a deterrent measure, it's hard to see how it works
either. Guys like Holmes think they're too smart to get caught so the calculating killer isn't put off by death sentences. The ones who kill out of
passion and anger act without thought and are likewise oblivious (in the moment) to consequences.

Factor in the margin for error in the justice system and there will always be those who are wrongly convicted (see Innocence Project).

Most of my argument isn't focused on the value of killers, it's focused on the values of society. The miscarriages alone ought to trigger a moratorium
and yet it continues with a 'Whoops, sorry.' I mean we can split hairs over state-sanctioned killing, but executing innocent people sounds like
state-sanctioned murder - it isn't, I know.

Without capital punishment, the State isn't put in a position of endorsing a system that regularly convicts innocent people and has a miscarriage-rate
higher than zero. Innocent people can be released and the animals of society can face incarceration. Make no mistake, I'm not sympathising with
torturers and killers.

Okay, but in the Holmes case there is no dispute whatsoever that Holmes committed the murders. Not Holme's defense, not even Holmes himself disputed
it. He plead guilty, and the jury convicted him of 24 counts of first-degree murder, 140 counts of attempted first-degree murder and 1 count of
possessing explosives.

There would be absolutely zero chance of executing an innocent man. There's no splitting hairs here; there's no hairs to split. As I've said
previously, I can't think of a better case to use to debate capital punishment. It removes all the usual excuses, red herrings and tangents.

There is absolutely no way this twisted monster can ever be allowed (read: trusted) around other people, be allowed to even
attempt redemption in society. He has become a 100% (not 99.99%, but 100%) burden on society. There is no middle ground here. He
deserves no dignity, none whatsoever; he is not entitled to it. He has lost his place as a member of the human race and transformed into a wild
animal. However, he is a wild animal who could not survive around other wild animals...in the wild. Therefore, he has no place to go, no place at
all.

There can be no valid objective argument to keep this monster alive. From my perspective they should have taken him out in the parking lot behind the
courthouse, executed him on the spot and tossed his remains in the dumpster to be disposed of in a landfill like the human refuse he is. (Admittedly,
I am colder and more matter of fact than most, but objective none the less).

As I have stated numerous times, the only reasoning for keeping this man alive is a result of someone having a deep seated personal (i.e. moral,
religious, etc.) objection to the death penalty.

Like I've pointed out, opposition to the death penalty doesn't have to relate to sympathy for killers. There are some abhorent, dangerous people in
this world and many are beyond the reach of rehabilitation or treatment.

In the countries without capital punishment, these people are funneled into the prison system or into facilities for the criminally insane.

Don't get me wrong, there are cases and events that sorely challenge my resolve on this issue. It's something that always needs to be revisited and
reconsidered. Nevertheless, it remains the case that I don't see the value to society of maintaining the death penalty.

Sorry but all those questions you babbled off are irrelevant.
My apologies for not clarifying that I don't necessarily mean this case in particular.

I'm talking about when a murderer is caught red handed, why do we waste millions of dollars with trials and such?

Barbaric or not the killing or keeping of one imprisoned murderer is not going to make society any better or worse.
I assure you, mans inhumanity to man knows no bounds, the removal of one killer has little to no affect on the advancement of man.

As far as I'm concerned murderers have zero to offer society, why should we pay for them to continue existing.

Firstly I would like to point out I was not "blabbing" a whole load of questions, which were in fact relevant, since you had not made it clear that
you were not discussing the Holmes case in particular.

Now, regarding when a murderer or paedophile or torturer or some nasty piece of work who has totally destroyed wilfully and with intent another
human's life or existence, so long as there really is no doubt, e.g. They are on film /audio doing it or perhaps multiple witnesses (like in The Moors
Murders with Myra Hindley and Ian Bradey, the two lads that killed Jamie Bulger or the men who beheaded Lee Rigby in the middle of the street during
the day) then I see no reason why they should live, often in better conditions and with better care than those in very poor homes or who have no home
at all. The cost of keeping someone in prison is huge, especially when you see how little is given for welfare as a comparison of tax money usage.
Perhaps some of the saving could be used to set up help for the victims and their families.

When a person commits a crime (and that designation is arbitrary) the first question should be; was that crime commited with intent, accidental, or
reactive.

For reactive crimes, crimes of passion we really should be looking towards rehabillitaion, regardless of the outcome of that crime. We have programs
for anger management, alcohol abuse and so on that help individuals that show real remorse and a desire to not commit crime.

Accidental crime, where an individual really couldnt be expected to know that their actions were criminal should also be rehabilative and in some
cases punitive. making individuals pay "penalties" for local transgressions can ensure an easier transition period for those abiding by the laws when
new comers are introduced.

Crimes with intent are different. In this instance, the perpertrator is well aware that they are commiting the crime.

And do so willingly and with aforethought.

In this case, rehabillitaion isnt going to work, you cant teach someone that what they are doing is wrong, when they already know that what they are
doing is wrong. Councilling might work, if the perpatrator can be made to realise the effect of there crimes on the reipients, but this is probably
only relevant to the young criminal with limited social interaction. (I suppose this could be seen as a type of rehabillitation)

Finaly we come to those criminals that commit crimes, on purpose, with a complete understanding of the potential punishments that could be handed out.
Anybody, that commits a crime with full knowledge of the repercussions is not fit to be a part of society, and anyone that commits a crime with full
knowledge of the repercussions is not compos mentis. As a civilised soceity, we do not just kill our mentally ill. We protect them from themselves,
and we protect society from them.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.